Yes, he really does believe it all belongs to the government

A belief in the right to tax therefore changes everything: the government is not taking from the private sector: the private sector is due what is left after the government has taken its share.

It\’s an amazing argument. All your money are belong to us.

25 thoughts on “Yes, he really does believe it all belongs to the government”

  1. Well, money and property are both (in law and in history) created and defended by government action. Money, obviously; but land ownership without a legally enforceable title deed is almost as useless as no land ownership at all. Latter is one of the main reasons why developing world farmers are so screwed.

  2. (Tim, you’ve forgotten your links. But I guess Ritchie is the missing link (ha, ha, BOOM!).)

    The only difference between the absolute slavery given by the proposer and the current form is the illusion of choice that we have now.

  3. There is no point in doing links to Ritchie becasue it would only help Ritchie’s web ranking and that would not be a good thing.

    So whenever you see an article without links you can assume that it’s the WGCE.

  4. Does no-one on the Left see what this man is proposing? That every person born on this bit of ground (the UK) is a a slave, from the moment they are born to the moment they die, wherever they live in the world, their earnings are never their own property, they merely may retain what little the State decides is fit, with no legal rights whatsoever? That there is effectively no right of ownership of anything, and civil rights are non existent? That once the State has decided that your worldwide efforts are theirs it is a much smaller step to it deciding that it better not let you leave the country, so as to maximise its control over you?

    Part of me says that RM is trying to destroy the Left from inside. Because surely no-one would be so stupid as to effectively call for the UK to be a sort of North Korea without having a secret plan to discredit the Left would they?

    The other part of me just says he’s a dangerous fool who needs to be opposed at all turns.

  5. #Jim
    Ritchie and his client group would see state slavery as a feature, not a bug. They’re mostly state employees or Guardian reading fuckwits anyway so they see themselves as the ones in charge, not the poor bastards who’re enslaved.

  6. Jim
    “Does no-one on the Left see what this man is proposing? That every person born on this bit of ground (the UK) is a a slave, from the moment they are born to the moment they die, wherever they live in the world, their earnings are never their own property, they merely may retain what little the State decides is fit, with no legal rights whatsoever?”

    Of course they do. That’s the point. They just assume that they will be in charge.

  7. …..Well, money and property are both (in law and in history) created and defended by government action. Money, obviously; but land ownership without a legally enforceable title deed is almost as useless as no land ownership at all……

    johnb…..That much is true, but to claim that the government has a right to all your income based on this fact would be a bit of a stretch. They are supposed to rule for us. If they want all our money in exchange for securing of property rights then I say we shop around for a better deal.

  8. johnb (#2) said “money and property are both (in law and in history) created … by government action”

    Conceptually and historically incorrect. Although both can be created by governments, they can be and have been created privately.

    Money ought to be obvious – until the Bank Charter Act of 1844 we had largely unrestricted private banknotes. The US Free Banking Era lasted from 1837 to 1866. I think private coins have been issued at various times.

    The origins of private property are largely lost in history, but there are anthropological studies of actual societies (including American Indians and Asian islands) who have private property without any State apparatus. Some of these also had private justice, where the two parties would select someone to act as judge.

    Yes, there are probably efficiency gains to State enforcement, but those are not infinite. Once the State starts demanding too much for its protection then, as serf (#9) sayd, it is time to look for an alternative.

  9. And developing world farmers are largely screwed because they lack protection for private property against the State, not against other individuals.

  10. Yesterday’s discussion of Enclosure shows that property rights can be better protected without the State.

    The medieval peasants rights over common land were not protected by the State – they would not, reaslistically, have taken disputes to the Royal courts, and the local courts were controlled by the Lord of the Manor who would, most likely, be their opponent.

    So their rights were protected privately, by the implied (or, sometimes, explicit) threat of rebellion.

    When the State became stronger (more courageous, if you like) it took their rights away from them.

    Customary peasants’ rights that had survived centuries of ‘feudal oppression’ were destroyed by the Courageous State.

  11. Of course one could use PaulB’s argument to say that all my money belongs to the banks, who look after it (and, according to much of the left, create it) for me.

    And I suppose my car belongs to the mechanic, for without him it would be useless.

  12. The fact that the State creates and regulates money is irrelevant. Money is a medium of exchange, not the labour that created the value. Money allows me to mow someone’s lawn for £10, and go to the pub and sit there and drink a couple of pints of beer. I have exchanged my labour for the labour of the brewer/publican, in an economically efficient way. My labour and that of the brewer could be represented by many things – shells, beads, cattle, gold coins, whatever. It just happens that the most widely accepted and easily divisible is State issued money. That in no way has any effect on whether the State owns the labour that the money represents.

    If I am paid for my labour in a means that the State did not create (gold for example) does that mean the State would not want tax me on that income? I don’t think so.

    Taxation is an expropriation of part of your underlying labour, but it does at least accept that what your labour creates is yours to start with. RM wants to turn that on its head and state that your labour is not yours at all, but the property of the State, who could if it so chose, remove it all and leave you with nothing. And that would be totally legal, moral and ethical.

    Which is so totally and utterly wrong I wish to refute it with every fibre of my being.

  13. Richard: my powers of persuasion must be well-nigh unlimited if you can do so much with my argument when I’ve written nary a word.

  14. ISTM property law as we know it in England was created in the common law.

    Before that it was created by the guy who had the bigger stick. “Get off my land” – “I’ve got a hundred swordsmen that say it’s my land. You’ve got a pitchfork. “

  15. Offshore Observer

    I’m sorry but it all depends on which philosopher you read. John Locke elegantly proves that private property exists in the absence of government. He uses the example of a person who picks and apple and eats it combines his own labour (picking the apple) with something growing in nature to elegantly prove that private property exists as part of natural law.

    He then derives the State as a natural progression of private property. That is we as humans create this artificial construct “the State” to enable is through the sacrifice of part of our own property (tax) to enable the State to do things like create laws to enforce property rights and stop crime.

    This is the underlying philosophy of those who signed the declaration of independence creating the USA. It is the basis of thier constitution and since its creation has become a global superpower with the most efficient and productive economy in the world.

    Then along came Marx and bollocksed it all up

  16. ‘Which is so totally and utterly wrong I wish to refute it with every fibre of my being.’

    If it ever gets close to what this utter cunt Murphy is proposing, I predict someone will drive to wherever he is working and take him out, in order that he never gets to enjoy a scintilla of the fruits of the nightmare he has helped bring about.

    I also predict a lot of other people would get taken out, too.

    People have seen what happens when these tools get control.

  17. Think it was Nigel Lawson who made the point that the real ‘division’ between left and right wing politics was that the right believe it is their money and the state need to make a case for why they need some of it , whereas the left believe that it is the other way around. He didn’t add (not that he really needed to) that the biggest advocates of the left see themselves as the benevolent distributors of the loot. Suggest that it all goes to Brussels, then see how keen they are (other than to go to Brussels)

  18. Philip Scott Thomas

    Does anyone know what relation Murphy has with the TUC? Is he just someone they rope in once in a while a sound bite or is he a regular part of their policy team?

  19. John B, no government could create money or protect property rights without food. So farmers create government. What conclusions follow from this?

  20. I’m struggling to reconcile this Ritchie (everything you create belongs to us) and the Ritchie who helped his clients avoid tax with various japes and wheezes.

    Perhaps he became so revolted. Y his behaviour that he became a fanatical covert to the Far Left in consequence? That his daily railing against private property and freedoms are the equivalent of scourging himself?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *